How realistic in terms of masculinity do you find the latest two films? Like would you expect a man to be like Daniel Craig or a little different. Sorry it's a vague question but its for my media coursework and need some feedback
How realistic in terms of masculinity do you find the latest two films? Like would you expect a man to be like Daniel Craig or a little different. Sorry it's a vague question but its for my media coursework and need some feedback
I am not sure if Craig as James Bond is lacking in masculinity but he's certaintly lacking in emotional maturity.
ok yeah i see what you mean, do you think his portrayal is more realistic of what a man should be compared to say Jason Bourne?
I am not too familiar with Bourne. I know Jason Bourne basically was used by the government and now he wants out. Bond on the other hand is fully aware of his occupation but again, his attitude has a rebel in Craig's films is totally out of character. James Bond really should be approached as assassin who feels compromised by his duty but he does it because he needs something bigger than himself to believe in.
The difference is that Bourne does not want to be in his situation and is a reluctant agent. Bond has signed up for it, though it's suggested that Craig's Bond has emotional difficulties ie can't love until he meets Vesper, grew up as an orphan. It's a way of getting around the fact that the guy goes around killing people and doesn't have a longterm girlfriend; it acknowledges his darker side as with The Dark Knight.
In a way Craig's Bond is a sop to the female audience imo, he starts CR as a monosyllabic thug the way many women see men at first, then when he meets Vesper he comes out of his shell and gets all chatty almost Cary Grant. So there's a bit of the saved by the love of a good woman bit, and his desperate urge to save Vesper at the end taps into the woman's romantic world view, rather than a bloke's imo.
The films acknowledge that one shouldn't really try to be like this Bond unless it's buying the clothes, cars, watches. I can't see his personality being appropriated by anyone unlike with Connery and Moore, because he doesn't do jokes and seems very angry all much of the time. It's a diff approach.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think the intention with Craig, all along, has been to create a character arc that brings James Bond to the point where he becomes that man that men want to be----and women want to be with. #23 can be/should be the film which completes that arc---and I'm convinced that Craig can do it!---which makes the current MGM ****-up all the more frustrating
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I agree L that's what EON probably did intend but the problem is Craig's Bond has been written so haphazardly. If the writers finally decided to make DC the way James Bond should be it certainly wouldn't have been the result of well constructed character development from the previous films. James in these two previous films seems to be painfully homogeneous. They want him to be a man-about town ladies man , a rambo-esque action hero, a quietly efficient assassin, and an anti-hero. All this and yet he can't seem to grasp simple life lessons he should have known that accompanies his profession. I am not saying I haven't enjoyed Craig but the writing has not been good.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
It's probably safe to say that I've enjoyed the writing in the last two pictures (especially CR) more than you have, Ricardo The QoS script has some issues, but IMO was hurt more by editing and the misguided desire to turn in a shorter, high-velocity film, leaving many dramatic 'beats' under-developed...but then again, a completed script doesn't appear to have been available when principal photography began.
The merits of attempting to give Bond more depth---and the degree to which such a thing has succeeded---can be endlessly debated, and in fact has been. However one feels about the quality of the setup over the previous two outings, I still believe #23 represents a major opportunity, and I hope it's not squandered.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The merits of attempting to give Bond more depth---and the degree to which such a thing has succeeded---can be endlessly debated, and in fact has been.
I am not debating if giving Bond more depth is a good or bad thing. I am saying he hasn't been given any depth in Caig's era. EON has had the time and money to do so and yet they seem incapable of doing it, IMO.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
The merits of attempting to give Bond more depth---and the degree to which such a thing has succeeded---can be endlessly debated, and in fact has been.
I am not debating if giving Bond more depth is a good or bad thing. I am saying he hasn't been given any depth in Craig's era.
And in doing so, you are debating 'the degree to which such a thing has succeeded,' as I indicated in the passage you quoted, and that's perfectly fine. We simply disagree on this; I think Bond has been given more depth in the Craig era than the character's ever been previously afforded---unless you consider individual scenes, such as the final one in OHMSS, or the one from TND where Bond drinks shots of vodka and waits for somebody to show up. I suppose my overall point is that I admire Eon's boldness in even attempting a multi-picture character arc where Bond is concerned. You believe they've failed, and you've plenty of company there, so it's all good!
As a Bond fan (literary first, and cinematic secondly), I cannot list the many ways in which Eon have disappointed me---particularly in the late Seventies/early Eighties----but I'll give them credit for trying when I feel they deserve it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And in doing so, you are debating 'the degree to which such a thing has succeeded,'
That's not what I was saying but never mind.
Anyway, that scene in TND would be great if you dis-regard the stupidity that has occured before. I think Bond's character has been given enough depth in Doctor No and On Her Majesty's Secret Service given the nature of the films. I think EON has good ideas but they can't seem to exploit them correctly.
I don't think DC is particularly masculine. He plays it rough and tough with the stunts and fighting, but he's no Connery or Lazenby for that matter. There's the scene in CR where he walks arm in arm with Vesper under a pretence back to the room (when Le Chiffre is ambushed by the two black guys wanting their money back) where he looks to walk positively camply across the casino/bar floor. His intimate/flirty moments with Vesper seem hardly masculine or manly to me either.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
I don't think DC is particularly masculine. He plays it rough and tough with the stunts and fighting, but he's no Connery or Lazenby for that matter. There's the scene in CR where he walks arm in arm with Vesper under a pretence back to the room (when Le Chiffre is ambushed by the two black guys wanting their money back) where he looks to walk positively camply across the casino/bar floor. His intimate/flirty moments with Vesper seem hardly masculine or manly to me either.
I think we need to unpack the notion of Masculinity in order to better understand it's function in a Bond movie (this is potentialy a very big subject) Craig's Bond so far is particularly interesting in this respect. So much was made of his Beach Body Bufness and those swim shorts etc. In many ways Craig has become a new model for 21st Century Masculinity, very tough physically, but with an evident emotional vulnerablility. Witness the supoerb scence post stairwell fight in CR, where
Bond with shaking hands downs a whisky to calm his nerves whilst staring into the mirror. Or the 'first kill' scene again in CR where the mask reveals a man. This is good complex stuff, counterbalanced by his evident physical prowess. My issue is that this superb arc stalled in QOS where for me at least our man was in danger of becoming an automaton set on kill. If I have a gripe with the interpretation it's that Craig's Bond seems too tough physically and as a cosequence a lot of the action lacks the tension that comes from ' how on earth will he get out of this' or what I term the 'Odd- Job moment' where our man is faced with a seeminlgly undefeatable opponent and yet...
For me the arc needs to be completed with 23, and Craig needs to be given the opportunity to deliver his finished article which I think will answer the question of Maculinity and how it functions in todays's Bond. However given that these are at route 'Action adventure movies' I think the achievement so far has been bold and remarkeable. I am not Eon's greatest fan, and in many ways think they should be prosecuted for crimes against Bondness for some of their previous terrible choices and decisions. However in ths respect I think they deserve praise.
For me the arc needs to be completed with 23, and Craig needs to be given the opportunity to deliver his finished article which I think will answer the question of Maculinity and how it functions in todays's Bond.
Witness the supoerb scence post stairwell fight in CR, where Bond with shaking hands downs a whisky to calm his nerves whilst staring into the mirror. Or the 'first kill' scene again in CR where the mask reveals a man. This is good complex stuff, counterbalanced by his evident physical prowess. .
But there was one thing missing, self conflict. They totally ignored Fleming's book by omitting what drove him into Vesper's arms. How "the hero and villians get all mixed up". Granted I like these scenes you pointed out but I could have done with more self conflict and less of the recklessness.
I think they tried to do how the heroes and villains are interchangeable in Quantum, how MI6 do torture with Mr White (or are about to) just as Quantum did, how Quantum work with and within the government, and maybe the drunk chat on the plane with Mathis. It just never manifested itself in a grand speech like in the end of CR the novel, and maybe even went over people's heads a bit.
I think they tried to do how the heroes and villains are interchangeable in Quantum, how MI6 do torture with Mr White (or are about to) just as Quantum did, how Quantum work with and within the government, and maybe the drunk chat on the plane with Mathis. It just never manifested itself in a grand speech like in the end of CR the novel, and maybe even went over people's heads a bit.
I am not sure about the White interrogation but you are right about the Mathis chat. It dosen't compare to what they SHOULD have done with Bond and Vesper in CR.
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable. He's not quite Connery yet in the whole funny-comfortable-coolness department, but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable. He's not quite Connery yet in the whole funny-comfortable-coolness department, but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
Quite right :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable. He's not quite Connery yet in the whole funny-comfortable-coolness department, but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
So Timothy Dalton doesn't cut the mustard? I think of Dalton as one of the best Bonds ever, his portrayal of the character is very uncannily Fleming like, and that's what I like about him. While I agree that Connery and Craig are very masculine, I'd have to put Dalton up there as well.
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable. He's not quite Connery yet in the whole funny-comfortable-coolness department, but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
So Timothy Dalton doesn't cut the mustard? I think of Dalton as one of the best Bonds ever, his portrayal of the character is very uncannily Fleming like, and that's what I like about him. While I agree that Connery and Craig are very masculine, I'd have to put Dalton up there as well.
I liked Dalton, but I don't think he had the same masculine quality. He was dark and tall, but if you're asking me who I think would win in a fight, Craig or Dalton, there's no doubt that Craig would beat him silly, even though he's neither as tall nor as big. In fairness to Dalton, he had a tough job trying to bridge the Moore comedy era with the return-to-the-books efforts of the 80s, yet Dalton also chose to play Bond more like Errol Flynn than Sean Connery.
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable. He's not quite Connery yet in the whole funny-comfortable-coolness department, but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
So Timothy Dalton doesn't cut the mustard? I think of Dalton as one of the best Bonds ever, his portrayal of the character is very uncannily Fleming like, and that's what I like about him. While I agree that Connery and Craig are very masculine, I'd have to put Dalton up there as well.
I liked Dalton, but I don't think he had the same masculine quality. He was dark and tall, but if you're asking me who I think would win in a fight, Craig or Dalton, there's no doubt that Craig would beat him silly, even though he's neither as tall nor as big. In fairness to Dalton, he had a tough job trying to bridge the Moore comedy era with the return-to-the-books efforts of the 80s, yet Dalton also chose to play Bond more like Errol Flynn than Sean Connery.
It's funny you mention Timothy Dalton adkin to Errol Flynn because last week I saw The Rocketeer for the first time. Dalton's villianious Neville Sinclair was inspired by Errol Flynn. I think Dalton has a fine masculine quality in general; Something in the vein of James Mason or David Niven.
So Timothy Dalton doesn't cut the mustard? I think of Dalton as one of the best Bonds ever, his portrayal of the character is very uncannily Fleming like, and that's what I like about him. While I agree that Connery and Craig are very masculine, I'd have to put Dalton up there as well.
I liked Dalton, but I don't think he had the same masculine quality. He was dark and tall, but if you're asking me who I think would win in a fight, Craig or Dalton, there's no doubt that Craig would beat him silly, even though he's neither as tall nor as big. In fairness to Dalton, he had a tough job trying to bridge the Moore comedy era with the return-to-the-books efforts of the 80s, yet Dalton also chose to play Bond more like Errol Flynn than Sean Connery.
It's funny you mention Timothy Dalton adkin to Errol Flynn because last week I saw The Rocketeer for the first time. Dalton's villianious Neville Sinclair was inspired by Errol Flynn. I think Dalton has a fine masculine quality in general; Something in the vein of James Mason or David Niven.
He's definitely a Flynn type. I first noticed Dalton when I saw Flash Gordon in the theatre, and though I didn't think Bond then, I did think Errol Flynn. I like Dalton, and I enjoy what he tried to do, but he just doesn't seem as tough as Connery, Lazenby, or Craig. And he shouldn't either. Dalton's strength is his sharp edge, not his blunt masculinity, which gives him the ability to play dashing or Shakespearean characters.
I think surely this question depends on how you define masculinity. And it can be very objective as it differs from person to person.
If masculinity means the condition and quality of being male, - that could mean a whole host of things, from physique, sexual prowess, and including being less emotionally open - then Bond, in all his forms, surely falls into all of those meanings, just various aspects of them. Connery, Moore and Brosnan were in the sexual performance quadrant, whereas Dalton and Craig fall more into the emotionless, cold, and in Craig’s case, his exaggerated physique and physical strength.
I would say, though, IMO that Craig probably tops the scale of 'idealistic' masculinity (well for us girls, anyway, and depending obviously if you find him ‘attractive’ or not) - for the pure fact of his physique - and his distance from head to his emotions - which were very much exposed in CR - (although this arc of him connecting to his feelings is, what I am enjoying most in these movies.....) I mean, his whole realisation that Vesper has, and I quote "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." saved him from himself, and made him a better person, and I suppose supports our view (women) of what masculinity means….. that every man needs help with his emotional education
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable…… but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
So is this realistic? Probably not, BUT I do much prefer this 'dawning to his emotions' - rather than masculinity being defined using his sexual performance and disposable attitude to women, which is where the earlier films were focusing on.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
My definition of Masculinity is how much pain a man could take both emotionally and physically without totally breaking down; A Man's man. Today's definition of men, in films, has become so superifical. They have have huge muscles and blow things to kingdom come to be a man. That's false masculinity IMO.
I think surely this question depends on how you define masculinity. And it can be very objective as it differs from person to person.
If masculinity means the condition and quality of being male, - that could mean a whole host of things, from physique, sexual prowess, and including being less emotionally open - then Bond, in all his forms, surely falls into all of those meanings, just various aspects of them. Connery, Moore and Brosnan were in the sexual performance quadrant, whereas Dalton and Craig fall more into the emotionless, cold, and in Craig’s case, his exaggerated physique and physical strength.
I would say, though, IMO that Craig probably tops the scale of 'idealistic' masculinity (well for us girls, anyway, and depending obviously if you find him ‘attractive’ or not) - for the pure fact of his physique - and his distance from head to his emotions - which were very much exposed in CR - (although this arc of him connecting to his feelings is, what I am enjoying most in these movies.....) I mean, his whole realisation that Vesper has, and I quote "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." saved him from himself, and made him a better person, and I suppose supports our view (women) of what masculinity means….. that every man needs help with his emotional education
Craig is the first truly masculine Bond we've had since Sean Connery -- in that, he's a throw back to blue collar guys like my old man that faced life with a kind of physical aplomb that defied the risks they took, and Craig is utterly believable…… but he will get there, and he's thankfully made Bond an exciting, not-so-predictable character once again!
So is this realistic? Probably not, BUT I do much prefer this 'dawning to his emotions' - rather than masculinity being defined using his sexual performance and disposable attitude to women, which is where the earlier films were focusing on.
Defining masculinity in a reductive way, such as being less in touch with emotions, is sexist and chauvinistic, not just because it's insulting to men but because it implies that women are somehow superior because they are more in touch with their emotions.
Men are in touch with their emotions but may not demonstrate that in the same way or privilege the same emotions. Certainly Bond is a good example. He is driven to great heroism because of love of country, hatred of enemy, and joy of competition. What makes him admirable to a lot of men is that in spite of struggles, he mostly controls those emotions -- and he's no worse in this regard than any driven person, male or female, who lapses into irrationality because he or she is human. That he controls his fear about physical obstacles makes him even more admirable.
And the running gag in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is that people misread this, in part because of stereotyping and in part because Bond plays his cards so secretively. M, arguably the wisest character in both films, certainly does not fully understand Bond in this regard, in part because she underestimates him because he is a man. She sees him as something of a reckless boy, one of the reasons Bond muses, among other times, in Casino Royale that "I love you, too, M" and in Quantum of Solace "she thinks she is [my mother]."
M patronizes Bond in this regard, and it is only when she begins to understand the purpose of his methods that she gives him credence. Her attitude as an administrator is understandable -- they tend to be patronizing in general -- and not markedly different than her predecessor's in Bernard Lee's characterization, but it's fair to say both scripts suggest their gender differences also influence this M's assessment of him.
Bond is by the way no more a womanizer in both films than the women are "manizers." Casino Royale makes the point he only gets involved with married women; obviously, they are women not satisfied with having only one male sexual partner at a time. In Quantum of Solace, Camille, as with many Bond women, is willing to use her sexuality to get what she wants, and it's obvious she's sleeping with the villain only for that purpose. Fields gives in pretty fast, and I don't believe we're to assume she's a virgin so much as she's an "independent young woman" who finds out ruefully that in spite of her confidence in herself, compromises that independence quickly just because she met a man so attractive to her.
Defining masculinity in a reductive way, such as being less in touch with emotions, is sexist and chauvinistic, not just because it's insulting to men but because it implies that women are somehow superior because they are more in touch with their emotions.
Gassy man, I just want to point out here that I did not mean to imply that men are less emotional - what I said was
that could mean a whole host of things, from physique, sexual prowess, and including being less emotionally open
- however I do believe that woman are generally able to express their emotions much more freely, (whether or not that is because it is generally more acceptable I'm not sure) plus woman do find it easier to talk about how they are feeling - and in most cases, NEED to talk about how they are feeling, whereas men, naturally, like to solve problems on their own, and 'retreat' within themselves. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but in most cases this is the case. Either way is fine. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that because we express emotions more readily, we are superior.
I consider myself neither sexist or chauvinistic - and if I came across as so, then that was not my intention.
Men are in touch with their emotions but may not demonstrate that in the same way or privilege the same emotions.
I totally agree with this statement - I do believe men are able to feel great emotion, however I do see, in everyday situations - such as television shows, films, even cartoons for children, that men are taught (from an alarmingly young age) to express their emotions differently from us girls.
I mean, his whole realisation that Vesper has, and I quote "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." saved him from himself, and made him a better person, and I suppose supports our view (women) of what masculinity means….. that every man needs help with his emotional education
I was just meaning, to educate how to show that emotion..... in fact I am trying to do this with my 5 year old son.... as his father has a very masculine "don't cry boy" type of thinking. My view, is to balance this out - and teach him, that it's okay to show emotion.
I was quoting you, in my original post, because I totally agreed with your statement. However, in my retort, I feel you might have misunderstood me.
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Defining masculinity in a reductive way, such as being less in touch with emotions, is sexist and chauvinistic, not just because it's insulting to men but because it implies that women are somehow superior because they are more in touch with their emotions.
Gassy man, I just want to point out here that I did not mean to imply that men are less emotional - what I said was
that could mean a whole host of things, from physique, sexual prowess, and including being less emotionally open
- however I do believe that woman are generally able to express their emotions much more freely, (whether or not that is because it is generally more acceptable I'm not sure) plus woman do find it easier to talk about how they are feeling - and in most cases, NEED to talk about how they are feeling, whereas men, naturally, like to solve problems on their own, and 'retreat' within themselves. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but in most cases this is the case. Either way is fine. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that because we express emotions more readily, we are superior.
I consider myself neither sexist or chauvinistic - and if I came across as so, then that was not my intention.
Men are in touch with their emotions but may not demonstrate that in the same way or privilege the same emotions.
I totally agree with this statement - I do believe men are able to feel great emotion, however I do see, in everyday situations - such as television shows, films, even cartoons for children, that men are taught (from an alarmingly young age) to express their emotions differently from us girls.
I mean, his whole realisation that Vesper has, and I quote "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." saved him from himself, and made him a better person, and I suppose supports our view (women) of what masculinity means….. that every man needs help with his emotional education
I was just meaning, to educate how to show that emotion..... in fact I am trying to do this with my 5 year old son.... as his father has a very masculine "don't cry boy" type of thinking. My view, is to balance this out - and teach him, that it's okay to show emotion.
I was quoting you, in my original post, because I totally agreed with your statement. However, in my retort, I feel you might have misunderstood me.
Yes, but all of your statements assume that the way a woman expresses her emotions should be the evaluative baseline for how everyone should express their emotions -- that is by definition sexist. You would not be expecting men to change their behavior to a woman's standard if it weren't so.
A more egalitarian approach would be to accept a world where two genders are not only allowed to express their emotions differently but are also respected equally for doing so. But any time there's an assumption that one side does it better than the other, it's automatically biased.
however I do believe that woman are generally able to express their emotions much more freely, (whether or not that is because it is generally more acceptable I'm not sure) plus woman do find it easier to talk about how they are feeling - and in most cases, NEED to talk about how they are feeling, whereas men, naturally, like to solve problems on their own, and 'retreat' within themselves. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but in most cases this is the case. Either way is fine. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that because we express emotions more readily, we are superior.
Please READ what I am saying...... I've even bolded it for you!
Yes, but all of your statements assume that the way a woman expresses her emotions should be the evaluative baseline for how everyone should express their emotions -- that is by definition sexist. You would not be expecting men to change their behavior to a woman's standard if it weren't so.
I don't ASSUME that at all..... when have I ever said that becasue we are able to express our emotions freely we are then superior? Yes I am educating my son to be able to know it's okay to express his emotions - but that is very different to saying that he HAS TO. The choice, ultimately, will be his.
To Assume = makes an ass out of you and me..... and you are the one assuming.
ASS U ME
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
olliec
Posts: 4MI6 Agent
Comments
Can you be a bit more specific ?
I am not sure if Craig as James Bond is lacking in masculinity but he's certaintly lacking in emotional maturity.
I am not too familiar with Bourne. I know Jason Bourne basically was used by the government and now he wants out. Bond on the other hand is fully aware of his occupation but again, his attitude has a rebel in Craig's films is totally out of character. James Bond really should be approached as assassin who feels compromised by his duty but he does it because he needs something bigger than himself to believe in.
In a way Craig's Bond is a sop to the female audience imo, he starts CR as a monosyllabic thug the way many women see men at first, then when he meets Vesper he comes out of his shell and gets all chatty almost Cary Grant. So there's a bit of the saved by the love of a good woman bit, and his desperate urge to save Vesper at the end taps into the woman's romantic world view, rather than a bloke's imo.
The films acknowledge that one shouldn't really try to be like this Bond unless it's buying the clothes, cars, watches. I can't see his personality being appropriated by anyone unlike with Connery and Moore, because he doesn't do jokes and seems very angry all much of the time. It's a diff approach.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The merits of attempting to give Bond more depth---and the degree to which such a thing has succeeded---can be endlessly debated, and in fact has been. However one feels about the quality of the setup over the previous two outings, I still believe #23 represents a major opportunity, and I hope it's not squandered.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I am not debating if giving Bond more depth is a good or bad thing. I am saying he hasn't been given any depth in Caig's era. EON has had the time and money to do so and yet they seem incapable of doing it, IMO.
And in doing so, you are debating 'the degree to which such a thing has succeeded,' as I indicated in the passage you quoted, and that's perfectly fine. We simply disagree on this; I think Bond has been given more depth in the Craig era than the character's ever been previously afforded---unless you consider individual scenes, such as the final one in OHMSS, or the one from TND where Bond drinks shots of vodka and waits for somebody to show up. I suppose my overall point is that I admire Eon's boldness in even attempting a multi-picture character arc where Bond is concerned. You believe they've failed, and you've plenty of company there, so it's all good!
As a Bond fan (literary first, and cinematic secondly), I cannot list the many ways in which Eon have disappointed me---particularly in the late Seventies/early Eighties----but I'll give them credit for trying when I feel they deserve it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
That's not what I was saying but never mind.
Anyway, that scene in TND would be great if you dis-regard the stupidity that has occured before. I think Bond's character has been given enough depth in Doctor No and On Her Majesty's Secret Service given the nature of the films. I think EON has good ideas but they can't seem to exploit them correctly.
http://apbateman.com
I think we need to unpack the notion of Masculinity in order to better understand it's function in a Bond movie (this is potentialy a very big subject) Craig's Bond so far is particularly interesting in this respect. So much was made of his Beach Body Bufness and those swim shorts etc. In many ways Craig has become a new model for 21st Century Masculinity, very tough physically, but with an evident emotional vulnerablility. Witness the supoerb scence post stairwell fight in CR, where
Bond with shaking hands downs a whisky to calm his nerves whilst staring into the mirror. Or the 'first kill' scene again in CR where the mask reveals a man. This is good complex stuff, counterbalanced by his evident physical prowess. My issue is that this superb arc stalled in QOS where for me at least our man was in danger of becoming an automaton set on kill. If I have a gripe with the interpretation it's that Craig's Bond seems too tough physically and as a cosequence a lot of the action lacks the tension that comes from ' how on earth will he get out of this' or what I term the 'Odd- Job moment' where our man is faced with a seeminlgly undefeatable opponent and yet...
For me the arc needs to be completed with 23, and Craig needs to be given the opportunity to deliver his finished article which I think will answer the question of Maculinity and how it functions in todays's Bond. However given that these are at route 'Action adventure movies' I think the achievement so far has been bold and remarkeable. I am not Eon's greatest fan, and in many ways think they should be prosecuted for crimes against Bondness for some of their previous terrible choices and decisions. However in ths respect I think they deserve praise.
Some way to go yet...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But there was one thing missing, self conflict. They totally ignored Fleming's book by omitting what drove him into Vesper's arms. How "the hero and villians get all mixed up". Granted I like these scenes you pointed out but I could have done with more self conflict and less of the recklessness.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I am not sure about the White interrogation but you are right about the Mathis chat. It dosen't compare to what they SHOULD have done with Bond and Vesper in CR.
Quite right :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So Timothy Dalton doesn't cut the mustard? I think of Dalton as one of the best Bonds ever, his portrayal of the character is very uncannily Fleming like, and that's what I like about him. While I agree that Connery and Craig are very masculine, I'd have to put Dalton up there as well.
It's funny you mention Timothy Dalton adkin to Errol Flynn because last week I saw The Rocketeer for the first time. Dalton's villianious Neville Sinclair was inspired by Errol Flynn. I think Dalton has a fine masculine quality in general; Something in the vein of James Mason or David Niven.
If masculinity means the condition and quality of being male, - that could mean a whole host of things, from physique, sexual prowess, and including being less emotionally open - then Bond, in all his forms, surely falls into all of those meanings, just various aspects of them. Connery, Moore and Brosnan were in the sexual performance quadrant, whereas Dalton and Craig fall more into the emotionless, cold, and in Craig’s case, his exaggerated physique and physical strength.
I would say, though, IMO that Craig probably tops the scale of 'idealistic' masculinity (well for us girls, anyway, and depending obviously if you find him ‘attractive’ or not) - for the pure fact of his physique - and his distance from head to his emotions - which were very much exposed in CR - (although this arc of him connecting to his feelings is, what I am enjoying most in these movies.....) I mean, his whole realisation that Vesper has, and I quote "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." saved him from himself, and made him a better person, and I suppose supports our view (women) of what masculinity means….. that every man needs help with his emotional education
So is this realistic? Probably not, BUT I do much prefer this 'dawning to his emotions' - rather than masculinity being defined using his sexual performance and disposable attitude to women, which is where the earlier films were focusing on.
Men are in touch with their emotions but may not demonstrate that in the same way or privilege the same emotions. Certainly Bond is a good example. He is driven to great heroism because of love of country, hatred of enemy, and joy of competition. What makes him admirable to a lot of men is that in spite of struggles, he mostly controls those emotions -- and he's no worse in this regard than any driven person, male or female, who lapses into irrationality because he or she is human. That he controls his fear about physical obstacles makes him even more admirable.
And the running gag in both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace is that people misread this, in part because of stereotyping and in part because Bond plays his cards so secretively. M, arguably the wisest character in both films, certainly does not fully understand Bond in this regard, in part because she underestimates him because he is a man. She sees him as something of a reckless boy, one of the reasons Bond muses, among other times, in Casino Royale that "I love you, too, M" and in Quantum of Solace "she thinks she is [my mother]."
M patronizes Bond in this regard, and it is only when she begins to understand the purpose of his methods that she gives him credence. Her attitude as an administrator is understandable -- they tend to be patronizing in general -- and not markedly different than her predecessor's in Bernard Lee's characterization, but it's fair to say both scripts suggest their gender differences also influence this M's assessment of him.
Bond is by the way no more a womanizer in both films than the women are "manizers." Casino Royale makes the point he only gets involved with married women; obviously, they are women not satisfied with having only one male sexual partner at a time. In Quantum of Solace, Camille, as with many Bond women, is willing to use her sexuality to get what she wants, and it's obvious she's sleeping with the villain only for that purpose. Fields gives in pretty fast, and I don't believe we're to assume she's a virgin so much as she's an "independent young woman" who finds out ruefully that in spite of her confidence in herself, compromises that independence quickly just because she met a man so attractive to her.
Gassy man, I just want to point out here that I did not mean to imply that men are less emotional - what I said was - however I do believe that woman are generally able to express their emotions much more freely, (whether or not that is because it is generally more acceptable I'm not sure) plus woman do find it easier to talk about how they are feeling - and in most cases, NEED to talk about how they are feeling, whereas men, naturally, like to solve problems on their own, and 'retreat' within themselves. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but in most cases this is the case. Either way is fine. And I'm certainly not trying to imply that because we express emotions more readily, we are superior.
I consider myself neither sexist or chauvinistic - and if I came across as so, then that was not my intention.
I totally agree with this statement - I do believe men are able to feel great emotion, however I do see, in everyday situations - such as television shows, films, even cartoons for children, that men are taught (from an alarmingly young age) to express their emotions differently from us girls.
So when I made the comment I was just meaning, to educate how to show that emotion..... in fact I am trying to do this with my 5 year old son.... as his father has a very masculine "don't cry boy" type of thinking. My view, is to balance this out - and teach him, that it's okay to show emotion.
I was quoting you, in my original post, because I totally agreed with your statement. However, in my retort, I feel you might have misunderstood me.
A more egalitarian approach would be to accept a world where two genders are not only allowed to express their emotions differently but are also respected equally for doing so. But any time there's an assumption that one side does it better than the other, it's automatically biased.
Please READ what I am saying...... I've even bolded it for you!
I don't ASSUME that at all..... when have I ever said that becasue we are able to express our emotions freely we are then superior? Yes I am educating my son to be able to know it's okay to express his emotions - but that is very different to saying that he HAS TO. The choice, ultimately, will be his.
To Assume = makes an ass out of you and me..... and you are the one assuming.
ASS U ME